Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Dithered volume control for Squeezebox
Darren. How does your process work with squeezelite as client? The volume-lock plugin on the server is meant for squeeze HW as far as the description suggests. There's no problem to lock the volume on the squeezelite client though. And. What's "fab4" in you convert.conf? flc flc fab4 * Thx. soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104629 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Oh-oh, the ethernet/USB cable dispute all over again ...
darrenyeats wrote: > > It seems DAC manufacturers (including the 'non-foo' pro firms) are not > stopping though. That's good. And there's an obvious reason for not stopping. "Audiophiles" and "Reviewers" are driving them nuts. ;) And companies like iFi are popping up with battery driven 200$ devices that shuffle the market. Some Pro-Audio companies, such as RME, would be better off to listen what's going on out there. I do own a RME FF UCX. The stock device is a pretty average performer. I kept it after swapping its power supply and applying a USB filter. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102632 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Oh-oh, the ethernet/USB cable dispute all over again ...
Julf wrote: > Of course. Every engineer also knows that there is a level that is low > enough that the noise doesn't have any effect. > Hmmh. Define: Noise The noise we're talking about is a complex bucket full of everything. It's comprising of all kind of different noise types. People tend to simply that expression. If it is "low enough" might apply for one area, for another area it can be much too high at the same time. For digital transmission and clocks etc. we're talking up 2 several 100MHz. For audio we're talking Hz/khz. There are direct but also indirect effects (clock modulations etc. affecting the MHz area) that relate to the audio performance. I - as an engineer - would have a problem to say what's low enough without looking at every single bolt first and at the next step at the system. A pretty complex task. I do know one thing - the lower, the better - over the entire bandwidth. Enjoy. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102632 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Oh-oh, the ethernet/USB cable dispute all over again ...
Every engineer does as much as a specification asks for. Usually no more. USB or networks were never build with "Audio" in mind. If a bit gets lost. It's send once more. That's not good enough, neither for medical, nor for lab, nor for audio applications. Every (radio) engineer (1 semester) knows about EMI/RFI effects. There's nothing to prove here. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102632 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Oh-oh, the ethernet/USB cable dispute all over again ...
Open lines or ports usually act like antennas/transmitters/reflectors. That even applies to RCA jacks. There are physical interferences. Properly terminating open ports is a very well known measure to get interferences down. If and how this impacts your soundexpierence is a different thing. Look. There are no idiots working at Audioquest (Gordon Rankin) or iFi (Thorsten Loesch - long history in DIY Audio). Obviously you have to differentiate between the engineers and the marketing folks and audiophiles with plenty of pocket money. Marketing needs bold marketing messages and Audiophiles need a successstory. These engineers apply certain (usually known) measures. Several of these measures are e.g. used in the medical industry for a long time. They also figure things out on a trial and error basis or they just jump on the train. Customers decide if it's works for them or not. Huge efforts in audio design go into reduction of noise, EMI RFI, interferences, stabil and noisefree powersupplies, clean grounds... The majority of DACs are simply not good enough out there - they IMO did improve during the last years. These devices get measured in a clean test bed. That's why peripheral changes in real world scenarios can have and usually have impact -- even on "Femto Clock" DACs. It's all not just esoteric talk. It's not all just black and white. Enjoy. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102632 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Oh-oh, the ethernet/USB cable dispute all over again ...
Hi there. I'm running USB filters since a long time. There's nothing esoteric about them. It's simple physics. These devices just filter the noise on pretty noisy USB data, power and ground leads. These effects can easily be measured. How much it impacts the DAC soundquality/soundexperience is a different question. ifi claims 5db noise reduction with the purifier. ( http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/accessory-ipurifier/ ) Filters can have different effects in different setups (DACs/PCs) though. They can work as supposed, they can be neutral, they even can make things worse (overdampening). I strongly recommend to try these devices. The AQ comes in at quite a low pricetag compared to its competition. Closest I'm aware of is the iPurifier @99$. If it doesn't work, just send it back. Enjoy. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102632 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upsampling Impressions
bennyboyph wrote: > Cheers - it doesn't want to work at 352.8 or 384kHz, which is what I > need to bypass the digital filters of my PCM5102 chip :-( OK. Sox maxrate is 192khz afaik. And your Squeezebox environment (server and client) would have to support 384khz too. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99088 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upsampling Impressions
Try this:
The file needs to be called :
custom-convert.conf
It just has to have these 3 lines
Code:
flc flc * *
# FT:{START=--skip=%t}U:{END=--until=%v}
[flac] -dcs $START$ $END$ -- $FILE$ | [sox] -D -q -t wav - -t flac -e
signed -C 0 -b 24 - rate -v -I -a -b 98 96000
inside for flac only resampling. You can play with the resampling
options. I think above is close to what John suggested earlier.
You
1. need to restart the server to activate it and
2. you have to make sure you've got flac flac decoding activaded in
advanced server settings / file formats.
Good luck.
::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) :::
by soundcheck
soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99088
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] MEASUREMENTS: Do Bit-perfect Digital S/PDIF Transports Sound The Same?
Nice try. Wrong subject. Nobody is discussing Aeris DAcs. We're or better I'm discussing your problems and your partially limited view of looking at things. You don't want me to dig out more examples!?! I'd like to add some more stuff to this thread. The OPs attempt of measureing "digital" software players such as JRMC JPLAY FOOBAR etc. lead to no results or better neglectable differences. You'll find some lengthy blogs about it on his blog page. Why do I bring this up over here. I do see a kind of relation. The OP doesn't understand that his high quality Teac DAC ( I do also have one at hand) tries everything to manipulate the incoming data. Exactly that what a measurements chain shouldn't do. There's a lot of signal recovering, refreshing, reclocking and filtering involved in a DAC device. That signal refreshing is pretty much similar to above WM8805 example. The better it's done the less problems remain on the output. The Teac DAC probaly does an even better job then the the WM8805. The OPs SW player measurements just show that his Teac+EMU (digital-analog-digital-analog ??) maesurments chain is doing such a good job that his EMU is not able to show significant differences. It doesn't say anything about the SW player performance and a potenially relevant USB layer 1 impact. Relevant measurements would have to be conducted on the physical USB interface. Otherwise no reliable results can be expected. Cheers ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99073 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] MEASUREMENTS: Do Bit-perfect Digital S/PDIF Transports Sound The Same?
One more: Mr. Jeff Rowlands 2ct: http://jeffrowlandgroup.com/kb/questions.php?questionid=445 ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99073 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] MEASUREMENTS: Do Bit-perfect Digital S/PDIF Transports Sound The Same?
Archimago wrote: > Oi... I think the numbers do say enough in themselves and support the > opinions. I don't think I overstepped anything and made the case > reasonably clear based on the particular setup. To me all the transport > devices sound essentially the same subjectively and although measurable > differences exist, they are small and most likely beyond normal hearing > abilities to differentiate. Since I'm measuring the analogue out from a > reasonably good DAC (ASUS Essence One), the final output is all I really > care about and specifics about the internal SPDIF/I2S jitter tolerances, > etc. aren't as important unless I can detect the differences with my ADC > which is better than human hearing as far as I can reasonably tell! > > As for "Otherwise we wouldn't have seen any progress in the last 20 > years" - I'd say it's pretty *obvious* the improvements made in the last > 20 years just looking at the "common measurements" like frequency > response, dynamic range, improvements in jitter compared to stuff in the > early 90's... > > Here's a question for you - which "uncommon" measurements do you think > are important to consider then that could have significant impact on > audible sound quality? Which of these have the "serious" audio industry > made major improvements on? I would love to learn about these factors... Yep. I know. That's why I brought up your "digital" measurement problem first. Something to digest. I hope that's enough as a first lesson. ;) By reading and digesting the Wolfson doc you'll very quickly gain some more background information. Enjoy. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99073 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] MEASUREMENTS: Do Bit-perfect Digital S/PDIF Transports Sound The Same?
Julf wrote: > Sorry to pick nits, but people who still think and claim digital is > digital are totally right in doing so - per definition. Your issue is > that sound is not digital, and in converting the digital data (that is > digital - by definition) that represents the sound into an analog > signal, the result is influenced by other things besides the digital > data. If the shoe fits... Sorry for stepping on your toes. Simplifying things won't help here. Sometimes things are just more complex than just counting 0 and 1. People who're not accepting analog problems originated from digital domain issues are nothing less then clueless. But that's a different story. I'm just saying that measurements and conclusions related to the digital domain of the OP are wrong and misleading. A different thing are his analog domain (DAC outputs) measurements. Perhaps not perfect, but usually good enough to be relevant. Though also with those rather useful analog measurements the OP has a tendency to draw "final" and "general applicable" conclusions that would explain everything. That's at least from my perspective a bit of a simplistc view. He should avoid to put opinions into his measurements. Let the numbers speak. That's enough. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99073 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] MEASUREMENTS: Do Bit-perfect Digital S/PDIF Transports Sound The Same?
Archimago wrote: > Where are you saying is the WM8805 SPDIF receiver in this post? That was > the SPDIF receiver in the old AUNE X1, not the ASUS Essence One... I > assume therefore you are the one mistaken. > > "Toslink can exhibit several 100ns of jitter" - do you mean "ps"? I'm > pretty sure I show 100+ps difference with the Transporter's TosLink vs. > coaxial if one were to calculate the peaks. > > BTW: What's with the "To me this (your) exercise is useless and > misleading" comment? Such an offensive tone is barely constructive in > this or really any domain don't you think? Suppose you were correct in > your comments above... Don't you think it's still useful to document > the (slight) differences between transport devices and encourage others > to explore the question since results could vary depending on the SPDIF > receivers? Just take a Cirrus CS8416 or a TI DIR 9006 instead of WM8805. They all have similar specs -- on the intrinsic jitter part. The CS8416 is the worst here. The Wolfsons WM8805/4 seem to attenuate jitter best. I'd guess that you'll find one of those three in 95% of all the devices out there. No. I mean Nano Seconds. Have a look at the datasheets or e.g. Phillips TORX Toslink transmitters. Just ONE side exhibits theoretically up to 15ns ( n as in nano) jitter. Now take the airgaps, the 2nd side, the cable asf asf. It's the WM8805 ( or something else ), which gets that SPDIF jitter down. We should not mixup SPDIF jitter specs and I2S jitter specs. On I2S we need pico second jitter. On SPDIF you can have 100ns and the receiver will still lock to it. Besides those transceivers you'll find in quality DACs even more jitter attenuation methods ( FIFO reclockers, ASRCS asf, the Sabre does it inside). All these will mess up your measurement results by improving the digital input signal. Measurement equipment or setups are not allowed to change a signal! Otherwise you'll measure the performance of your source + your measurement equipment performance. You might want to read this 'Wolfson' (http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/documents/uploads/misc/en/Jitter_performance_of_spdif_digital_interface_transceivers.pdf) document. People who still think and claim digital is digital just have not understood how things work. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99073 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upsampling Impressions
This thread is about resampling qualities resp. differences between filter settings. And NOT about file formats. ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99088 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upsampling Impressions
Guys. Don't highjack this thread. My main question still is: What's your preferred least intrusive and highest quality Sox SRC setting? It seems that not anybody is able or willing to come up with a recommendation!?!? ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99088 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Wandboard vs. Touch ?
Hi there. I'm wondering if to try the wandboard with community squeeze. Has anybody compared SQ of the Wandboard Toslink to Touch Toslink? Wandboard perhaps with quality USB-SPDIF interface -> Touch? If wandboard, then solo/dual/quad ?? THX Cheers ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99147 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upsampling Impressions
edwardian wrote: > Klaus, I read your document, and unless I missed something, you were > resampling from 16/44.1 to 24/96? Is that correct? Did you ever try > going from 16/44.1 to 24/88.2 or 24/176.4? If so, did you hear any > difference (compared to 24/96)? > > And I also tried SOX upsampling in LMS a while ago, but I remember at > the time that I didn't like the idea that it only output FLAC (as all my > music is WAV). But are you saying that was only because it was going > from 16 bit to 24 bit? IOW, if I first convert some files to 24bit > (offline) and then use SOX in LMS to upsample in realtime (say from > 24/44.1 to 24/176.4), will it output PCM? Or is there any other method > to use SOX in LMS and have it output PCM? > > Thanks. > edward I tried all kind of SR combinations. Beside that I was told that top quality algorithms do not need synchronous SRC. Have a look at http://src.infinitewave.ca/ to figure out the artefacts associated to SRC. If you look at the graphs of top quality converters, you wouldn't expect any "data" related losses. You don't see any artefacts on 44.1 -> 96 conversions. I btw also tried Izotzope Adobe r8brain pro beside SOX, since some of tha AA fellows swear Izoptope or Adobe would be the leading packages. I could not tell a difference. That's why I stayed with Sox as a free package. Asynchronous vs. synchronous plays a bigger role in HW reclocking implemtentations. You might catch intermodulation problems. However. You can simply change the numbers and try by yourself. If anybody has a better idea. Shoot. I'm very open to try new settings. --- Regarding 24bit. It's not just the bitdepth. It's also the sample rate. A different sample rate requires reencoding to flacs. I btw have converted all my tracks to 24bit. Because I'm running server-based offline volume control using replaygain (EBU R128 compliant, applied with r128gain tool) tags + system specific attenuation offset. Doing it this way I can continue to stream PCM. Nowadays I run my main system without manual volume control. What a relief. --- ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99088 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Upsampling Impressions
Hi there/John. A lot of writing and reading. I tried resampling with SOX and other (reference) tools as discussed at Audio Asylum and elsewhere several times in the past. http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.de/2011/04/tt-resampling.html I never managed to get it working to my satisfaction. Neither realtime, nor offline. The SQ was always worse then the original. Maybe I missed something out. Issues: 1. You need to attenuate the "digital" signal before you apply the filters to avoid clipping. 2. Realtime SRC is causing higher load on the processor and higher traffic on the entire path. That might translate into audible losses on most of the systems out there. 3. Offline SRC is kind of inflexible, if you change your DAC devices once in a while or if you feed different DACs at home. You always have to keep copies of the originals and the resampled materials. You might have a player which does offline SRC prior to playback and caches a full track/CD on e.g. a ramdisk. But that's not possible in a LMS environment. 4. No filter is lossless. 5. If you stay with 16bit you have to re-dither the already dithered material. E.g. You can't do 16 bit to 24bit conversions on LMS if you stream PCM. You need to re-encode PCM to flac again. 6. I've never seen somebody offering an to me acceptable sample rate conversion setting. -- John. Shoot. I'm listening. To me SRC is a questionable workaround to cover the deficiency of rather poor or inflexible HW (firmware + HW) implementations. If your HW implementation is that bad, that SW SRC with all its issues as described above (maybe more) sounds better than your HW SRC, I'd look for a better HW. Please let me know your favorite SOX settings. Cheers ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99088 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] MEASUREMENTS: Do Bit-perfect Digital S/PDIF Transports Sound The Same?
Comment: What you measure is your measurement DAC (e.g. WM8805 ) receivers capability to cope with the incoming signal. The better the audio DACs digital interface, with all its error corrections implemented, the better the source issues will be suppressed. It doesn't say much about the actual and absolute interface quality. A WM8805 SPDIF receiver is specified with a constant 50ps output jitter. No matter, if you use Toslink or SPDIF. Toslink can exhibit several 100ns of jitter, magnitudes higher then Coax. I don't think that's shown with your measurements. That requires real world measurement equipment, However. Manufacturers like Wolfson promise 50ps fed to your DAC. Your measurements say that these 50ps are not always achieved with your DAC. To me this (your) exercise is useless and misleading. Cheers ::: ' Touch Toolbox and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99073 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
I don't miss the point. I'm well aware of the history. SBGK IMO improved on his attitude. He started his own thread as I've been suggesting. And he put quite some valuable work on the subject. Both of the guys were facing permanent attacks. I know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately it's not possible to ignore those attacks. That's what SBGK tried in his own thread. If you try, things get worse. It's like putting oil in the fire. If you respond -- things get worse. Catch 22. Escalation was inevitable. Though I'm not sure where and if it really escalated. IMO SBGK remained pretty calm. The main problem was that the moderators let things run free for much too long. And finally, at the time they jumped in they didn't stay neutral. You can't do worse. Of couse it's much easier to pick two instead of going after the crowd, who's causing the trouble. It was not SBGK coming up with the server impact issue. It was me. It's written on the blog since a long time. SBGK got banned for it resp. for the "discussion" it was causing in his thread. It's rediculous to read now that it was not about the actual subject. If hijackers enter the scene it's always about destruction. It's never about the subject. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Dear Michael. Good to see that you're around. I'd expected you to show up much earlier to "moderate" this or that. Just scan this thread only and you'll find numerous insults. A certain crowd over here seem to have "Narrenfreiheit" and gets away with it - All the time - Those people are desctructive and ususally never contribute anything valuable. However. With MCR or SBGK you IMO picked the wrong ones. Nasty discussions usually never start by the people who're willing to support the community or the ongoing discussions. If you're continously attacked by the well known hijackers or selfacclaimed experts you fight back at a certain point. Though. Fact is, that things get nasty and escalate due to lack of moderation. That's very much a problem of this forum. Michael. You're the captain. It's your job to get the pressure out, before things escalate. The right timing is key. If you bann SBGK for posting his findings or MCR for his famous entertaining posts. You have to bann me too for running "my" projects. And you have to bann all other confirming my or SBGKs or Dynobots or John Swensons (to name a few) findings that potentially improve your product performance and market penetration. I do think we're bringing valuable issues up, that can help you in getting better products out. Bottom Line. I'd like you to get them back in. Look for those who're the ones causing the trouble. I'm sure you'll find them. I'm sure that'll improve the overall climate on your site. THX -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Hi folks. Can anybody confirm that Magiccarpetride as well as SBGK got officially banned?? And that both of them are the only ones who got banned?? (I'm still here obviously) Thx. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Phil Leigh;688021 Wrote: > > > People really should read this excellent post: > http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=687942&postcount=1 You proved that post to be wrong with your own measurements !!! Forgotten about it. Perhaps you should redo them. Some comments about your measurements: Obviously you're pretty sure, that those prove what you hear. I could call that subjective perception. Assuming you'd do correct and sufficantly precise measurements and not to forget, you'd be measureing the right thing, you should first of all measure a W7 server with and without all the mods in place. That's what's mainly being talked about over here. If you don't have a reliable reference your recent measurement is useless. Cable related EMI/RFI measurements are even more complex. To compare those you'd need to test different cables. Your measurements can be questioned as much as any listening test. Your measurement - at its whatever quality level - just says nothing changed. Good sound would remain good, bad sound would remain bad. That's all it says. Beside that: You obvisouly assume that 20s are sufficant to prove your very specific testcase. That obvisouly can also be questioned. It needs more meat on the bones to convince me. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
evdplanke has finally proven there is no difference. phil has proven there is no difference. We're all happy now. We can close that case. Why don't you guys cut it and run your show at your own playground? Bottom line - I don't have to prove anything, nor I've to explain anything. Why should I even try to explain anything. It's not existing. People install my stuff or leave it. No claims, no promises. It's that easy. I guess I made my point. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
chill;688002 Wrote: > 5 reasons? Wow - for someone who can't offer ONE reason why it won't > work, that's quite demanding. Shouldn't one good reason be enough? > > Anyway, here's a weak attempt to split the one good reason into 5. > > > > Reason 1: If you disconnect the ethernet cable, the NIC has NOTHING to > do. > > > > Reason 2: If you disconnect the ethernet cable, there is NO load on the > NIC and related parts of the chain. > > > > Reason 3: If you disconnect the ethernet cable.. I hope you can > see where this is going. > > > > Reason 4: If you disconnect the ethernet cable, by definition, those > flaws are removed. Period. From the moment you remove the cable, the > impact of the server and the network that transported the bits, without > error, to your SBT is completely nullified. If you hear a difference > between 'with cable' and 'without cable', it means the network and > server WERE having an audible effect. If you don't, they weren't. > > > > Reason 5: This test proves a lot in this area. > > > > Or you can do the damn test and prove it to yourself. Answer follows KISS principle. That's what I expected. :D And I don't expect more to come to be honest. ;) Seems to be Phils lucky day today: No dogs barking for scientific 20s-double-blind-ABX-qtipped-ear testing yet!?!?!? :D Let's wait a little. Perhaps they notice. ...and ...now that I think about it... ...nobody barking for measurements!!! Folks we're at SB community forums!?!? You folks really disappoint me. Enjoy. TBC -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Why do I consider the pull-the-network-cable testcase irrelevant !?!?! Why should it be relevant !?!? Give me 5 good reasons. But please skip: "Because Phil can't hear anything." That's an observation. TBC -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
More comments to Phils recommendations: 1. It doesn't make sense to go wireless, because of isolation purposes, if that would generate even more mess inside your transport, due to e.g. higher and nonlinear load translating into even more noise. 2. It doesn't make sense to go Toslink, if on the receiver side you'd generate worse jitter effects, than you'd see with a passive coax and a pulsetransformer. If Toslink works depends on your DAC receiver stage and jitter supression capability and other factors. The key challenge is to find the best compromise. It's always about finding the best compromise. There is no black or white. And there's no free lunch. Those recommendations can not be taken as "that'll solve all your problems". It really depends on your own system components and environment what works best or you. Finding a common conclusion ?!?!? I doubt it. There's no other way then keep trying to find the best compromise that works for you. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
1. Nobody has proven that SBGK testcase is not causing data loss. Data loss is possible in an IP network. 2. I agree with SBGK to NOT agree with above statement, that "...we all agree...". Though due to other reasons then SBGK. I haven't run the magnet testcase. ;) 3. The Phil Leigh 20s one-buffer listening testcase I consider irrelevant. IP packet networks were never meant for realtime data streaming. It is a well known fact that A/V realtime traffic is causing serious and pretty inhomogeneous latencies and paket jitter on the receiving end. To cope with that problem, special buffers had to be introduced to the receiving end. Logitech made that buffer pretty large for a very good reason I guess. Though I don't think 20s would be required because of networking jitter/latency only. I do see some more reasons for a big buffer. The transport needs to be able to cope with higher samplerates then 44.1/16. I guess rew/ffd actions also require more buffer space. Run all that wireless and you're scratching the ceiling. There are services like QoS or qWave by MS, which are supposed to improve that well known network A/V streaming challenge. I learned the other day that LMS is not using the qWave API. I'm not sure how Logitech handles these challenges. Perhaps the buffer gives them plenty of space to avoid network streaming optimizations. So far so good. Back to paket latencies and paket jitter. Running a large buffer doesn't mean that there is less work to do for the NIC to get the traffic managed. Not to forget also buffers usually get continously refilled and need to get managed. It's not that somebody will sit idle for 20s until the buffer needs a free refill, while the server further updstream still runs a realtime stream. It is well known that that the inhomogenous paket traffic is causing high inhomogeneous loads on the NIC and related parts of the chain. Heavy inhomgeneous load conditions due to NIC resp. related parts incl. software management functions on the Transport, could translate into jitter resp. additional noise or power variations. And from there those flaws would add to the rest of noise and jitter (all cumulative) of that device and make it all the way through the transport to the DAC. All that should be measurable. If somebody intends to do so. The data and the noise are taking a different route. They seperate at the NIC somewhere. The data gets filled into the buffer and the noise makes it right to the output without any buffering. They probably won't meet again at a later stage - at the output. The data will always be late. So far my theory. Since nobody around here can prove anything in that area, it's rather useless to have that discussion. Of course we can continue to exchange our observations or wild guesses. My guess - the better the upstream network and server setup - the less impact you'll see on the downstream NIC. That would translate into less noise/jitter/power variations. The network related EMI/RFI (cable shield yes/no) story is another story. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Hi folks. Anybody ready for a little tweaking session tonight?? I brought this potential tweak up some time ago. Would be nice to hear about your todays observations. If you're on W7: Open device Manager - Your Network Adapter Open advanced settings set "Speed" to "100MBIT duplex" fixed instead of "automatic". reboot I'm wondering if it makes a difference to you. Please let us know. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
lake_eleven;687110 Wrote: > Picked up the Acoustic Research CAT6 2m cable, but it sounds not as good > as the cheapo blue CAT6 I already have. Do the Ethernet cables need > burn-in time? > http://acoustic-research.com/cablesconnectivity/performanceseries/?sku=AP625 At least it sounds different. ;) Well made 6$ cables doesn't have be worse then those more expensive "audio/video" grade ones. That's what I also figured. Try also cables with or without shield. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Soundcheck Mods 3.0 with External DAC?
I know several people (actually friends who usually get my betas) who run Sabre based DACS (mostly TP Buffalos). I do also own two Sabre DACs. It's a myth that the Sabre on it's own gets along with jitter/noise quite well. All changes done on the transport side you'll experience 1:1 on the Sabre output. The key issue is the input stage of a DAC device, and not the DAC chip itself. Checkout the 'Anedio DAC' (http://www.anedio.com/index.php/article/squeezebox_touch) page. Those guys try their best to clean up the incoming signal first before it's send to the DAC chip. You'll find some interesting graphs about Touch vs. Anedio DAC over there. They also talk about Jitter measurements etc. I'd love to find a DAC/input stage which is immune on incoming distortions. My Touch Toolbox project would finally come to an end. I don't see light at the end of the tunnel yet. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93302 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
Phil Leigh;687063 Wrote: > and by the way, if I need to do any CRITICAL listening I use my > headphones. They are of superior quality to any speaker system > available and I don't need DRC... > > So stop trying to sidetrack this discussion onto the merits of my > replay chain. You gotta seriuos problem with your attitude. Calling other peoples findings nonsense. Without being able to prove what your're saying and even coming up with false claims. And finally trying to cut the discussion by a more than arrogant "Sigh". No Phil. It's not working like that. And I'm sure the next time you'll post again your believes. Because I think we've had a similar disussion about convolution before. Anyhow this discussion is another example underlines that somebody called it "bold" statement I made earlier in this thread. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
Phil Leigh;687062 Wrote: > Sigh... > > the processing/convolution is not done in 16-bits > I resample everything to 96k for processing. > > I overead your "sigh". Stands for your attitude. You got a logical problem in above. You mixed up bitdepth and samplerate. That can happen. And guess what: Resampling introduces - - Guess what?? Yep. "Losses" And even if you generate 24bit files. The nasty dither of 16bit material stays in the signal and gets convolved. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
Phil Leigh;686948 Wrote: > there is no loss of resolution using Inguz.. What microphone did you use > to do your measurements? > I think you are talking nonsense - sorry. It seems everybody is talking nonsene except you, dear Phil. Your attitude is getting more and more annoying to be honest. 1. The recording usually introduces losses and phaseshifts. That recording is base to calculate the filters. And these are multiplied with the data. That's the first time you introduce losses. 2. The filter 100% matches your recording position. Half a meter to the left or even your left and right ear won't have that exact position of your mike anymore. "Losses!!" 3. No filter is lossless. You introduce ringing and partly phaseshifts to the signal. "Losses" ( Lets skip 32 vs 64 bit calculations) 4. The filter resolution or number of taps makes a difference. Losses. 5. Different samplerates make a diiference. "losses". 6. To avoid clipping you at least apply 3db attenuation (prior to convolution) on usually 16 bit base data, which are already dithered. "Losses" 7. To do all the processing you need quite some processing power. Especially if you also run a crossover. That'll cause jitter and noise again. "Losses" I'll stop here. Because that are the losses I can put together with a minute of thinkig about it. Even on the DRC page you find more of those. Now you explain where you discovered a lossless convolution. I bet you'll win the Nobel price for that finding. Phil. Sorry. You're wrong. Face it. P.S: Above doesn't mean that the "losses" introduced by room resonances are irrelvant. It's the other way around. Convolution is and will remain a compromise solution. To many people the effects of convolution outweigh by far the losses introudced by doing it. I prefer to run without it. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
i'm not using fidelizer, jplay, process lasso, tcp optimizer, cplay/cmp2. or similar by myself. i'm talking about fidelizer because it's available to the community . above programs give me an idea how far i got with my own tool. i've written my own tool, which doesn't cost me anything and pretty much combines a lot of features of above tools. i havn't accomplished to change the scheduler yet. currently i'm using the tool you came up with. the xp freebee version seems to work also on w7 btw. it lacks autostart and daemon mode though. my current stategy is to get the server properly set first. based on that I'll finalize tt4.0. cheers. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
I need to talk about SBGKs findings/recommendations again. He now states that Fidelizer sets the server prio to low. That's why he need to set it to normal/high again. First of all I recommend on the blog that you should set the server performance to high (-16 high) in the LMS performance settings. In this case there's no need to use any other tools to increase the LMS process prio. It's high. In my case Fidelizer (Audiophile/or customize) won't change anything on the LMS prio side. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
lake_eleven;686930 Wrote: > Have anyone tried this?, any good differences found?. A friend of mine has bought those Fidelity mods. His impression and conclusion after a couple of days is: Not worth it if you got your Touch rather well tweaked on the SW side plus some other HW mods ( better PS and SPDIF2MBO) I'll visit him next week or the week after. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
Phil Leigh;686878 Wrote: > > > So whatever people claim to be hearing, it has nothing to do with "the > bits" Phil. You're "again" wrong. And you never seem to understand. A bit got a logical value AND a physical shape. (It's been even mentioned earlier in this thread) For you as an IT person the logical value is obvisously the only thing you're interested in. That also explains your overall and "buffer" logic. For me as an audio+it person I'm interested in the logical value AND the physical shape and conditions. I can tell you that'll give you a much wider perspective. Anyhow. I give it up on you. You doesn't seem to be able to cross your pretty narrow IT universe. Enjoy. P.S: 1. I consider the "plug the cable" test nonsense. 2. Since we discovered the server impact more than a year ago, we've been running one server wireless. Guess what. The server optimzation still made a difference. Again. All stuff that I post has been verified on several systems before I post it. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
Boys. It's weekend. Do me a favour. I assume all you guys who hang around here are running a W7 server. I also assume that you all got a pretty high quality stereo at home. I also assume that you all run a Touch (hopefully not in the bathroom, otherwise you wouldn't hang around in the audiophile section). 3*Yes??? Ok. Now you go ahead. Server: 1. Install TCPOptimizer with optimum settings (free of charge) 2. Install and Run Fidelizer (free of charge) Touch: 1. Install my Toolbox. (Free of charge) and listen. It's that easy. I can't do more for you than that. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
mhaas;686677 Wrote: > Sorry to having to press you here: This thread is about the OS tweaks on > the SERVER side - LMS, not the PLAYER - TT3. Just read my post again. mhaas;686677 Wrote: > > BTW the gamers are optimizing to increase the speed of the network they > need for the large amount of data to transmit. "Large amount of data." "optimzing speed of network" Slowly but surley it'll dawn on you. I'm sure about that. ;) -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
Jeff Flowerday;686678 Wrote: > Gamers are dealing with realtime and reducing lag to improve it. > Squeezebox devices are all buffered. > > 2 completely unrelated adventures. You don't understand what we're talking about. Sorry, I can't help with that. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
A comment to cables and connections: It doesn't matter if we talk USB/SPDIF/Ethernet/Power/RCA cables, or even board traces they all show filter and antenna characteristics and also can cause nasty groundloops. Innappropriate connectors or connections are causing impedance mismatches thus reflections or crosstalk. Poor grounding and decoupling inside the equipment won't get rid of conducted or radiated noise properly. All that gets a big mess. All this will have a certain impact on the sending resp. receiving end. If you're not able to get rid of it before your the signal reaches your DAC you'll hear it. Bold statment. But it's not much more complex then that. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
mhaas;686653 Wrote: > Soundcheck, > With all respect, in your last reply you didn't say anything about the > influence of the OS on the LMS which is feeding the SBT and the > Ethernet cable which connects the 2 devices. That was the original > subject of this thread and you expressed some bold statements about it. I didn't notice that you didn't realize what's being done on the OS side. It's pretty much what I do with TT3.0 on the Touch. Getting rid of pretty much everything which has nothing to do with the LMS server path. And then you try to make that task run as "smooth" as possible. That'll have an impact on the receiving end. At least that's what some of us experience. The gamers are years ahead of optimizing their gaming servers and networks. It's really interesting to see what they've done. (speedguide.net) Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
chill;686633 Wrote: > Soundcheck > > Based on the simple facts that the music data is buffered on the > player, and that all the right data bits are present and correct long > before they are converted to either SPDIF or an analogue output, can > you please outline what aspects of the server > OS/configuration/whatever, and what aspects of the data transmission > over ethernet can influence the quality of the playback? Is there a > feasible explanation for what you are hearing? What we communicate and discuss over here are "observations" by pretty independent rather open minded people first of all. No. We're not narrow minded audiophiles. We all run a 200$ box. Nor we're narrow minded tecchies or scientists. If I'd be a real audiophile I'd have a 12k Devialet at home... ...and wouldn't spent any time with a toy. Trying to explain anything without running a rather professional study about a subject would look pretty stupid and unprofessional. But not that stupid as those folks who make it a principle to claim the opposite without proving anything and showing 0 constructive contributions. Many of us do have a solid engineering background. Still, things are much too complex to cover and explain the whole story. I could spent half a year on a cable study, another one on the router, another 2 years on the server, asf. to prove it all. This is not my intention. I'm focused on results. And I share it with others free of charge. That's what SBGK is also doing btw. He meanwhile puts also quite some time on the subject. More than many many others. Unfortunately especially this forum got a very bad climate. A little crowd manages to make this forum one of the worst forums I've seen. People are very quick in calling other people trolls. Those people usually never contributed anything but hooligan behaviour or just follow the crowd. Back to issue: If I would setup a study about the subject. I'd know that just to look at the SB buffer as an unquestionable constant would probably misleading and the absolute wrong thing. A buffer needs to be managed. There's continous RX/TX traffic ongoing to fill it. The data is not send in 20s chunks. The data is send as a continous stream. That stream is all but linear. That means there's quite some work to do. My 1st guess would be that all this is causing a non-linear indirect physical impact, which translates into a higher noise or jitter inside the Touch. This usally has a direct impact on the DAC AND also SPDIF. Some people have shown (also by measurements) that improvements inside the Touch ( better decoupling, better and more stable PS, better clocks better parts) will reduce those indirect effects. Which means, the better the electronics the less we'd face those observed problems. Though I doubt that you'll get the whole stuff 100% under control. The best solution would be to find an external DAC which would be able to get rid of all distortions on its input. In this case we wouldn't have to have this discussion. As you'll see even those people who bought 2-3k DACs and believed those marketing claims about distortion immunity had to learn that this is not the case. I've chosen a streaming setup (after fiddling around with PCs for years) because I believied not see any impact from the network or server. I have been shocked to learn that I was wrong about it. Because things got even more complex than just running a PC. I know there are many people out here who gonna try what's being posted. We wouldn't post all that stuff just because it's fun to end up in a nasty discussion every time. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
carp;686620 Wrote: > This is just crazy! But hey, it's also entertaining. Wait a moment and > let me get some popcorn so that I do not miss anything :-) See. You seem to live not that far away from Meicord. Why don't you stop by and get yourself some lessons in german engineering. These guys are pretty skilled telecommunicaton engineers. That's gotta be entertaining. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Win 7 Optimisations
Folks. SBGK is not coming up with any general news over here. That ethernet cables make a difference has been discussed at lenght at several places. There have been reviews. There have been measurements. (I've been even in close contact to the Meicord Designers -- btw.) That a server OS setup makes a difference is also well known and communicated - at least to some people - since quite some time. SBGKs main approach over here first of all is to get rid of Fidelizer. It is also known (communicated and discussed elsewhere) that Fidelizer in conjunction with audiophile apps (such as Jplay or ( even better) e.g. Cplay/CMP2) makes for a nice improvement on a W7 platform server. (Which IMO is better than any NAS or Linux server) At least for now I don't see any real new discovery over here. SBGK is just digging out a partly different toolset to achieve his goals. What's missing on the list is the TCPOptimizer to take care on optimized ethernet trafiic. Enjoy. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93257 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Jacky;686600 Wrote: > Back to topic: > > I operate still TT3 with Logitech defaults, but [IRQ-47] with 45 > instead of 40 & buffer set to 3500: (with activated display on & > infrared) > > The treble are thus slightly more present, more similarly to vanilla > TT3, however further with marginal better sound stage. > > Worse bass performance above buffer 4000. > > Jacky Hi Jacky. I pretty well understand what you guys are talking about. Those resp. similar options will make the new prio profiles in TT4.0. Obviously I need to make sure now to built in a higher flexibility then I did in TT3.0 to meet everybodies (or at least the majority) preferences. I btw don't get along with TT3.0+ default prio SBT setting. I have it in as one profile and can easily switch between that one and my own preference. That makes comparisson much easier. My friends, who run TT4.0 Beta, pretty much confirm my findings. (I just ask them what profile they like best - you might call that double blind testing ;) -- even a Placebo testcase did not work on them :D -- that's a good sign. ) I guess we'll get there. Sooner or later. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
I just had an Intimate date with Ella @ 3k6. ;) Great stuff. Been running for a while (the last two weeks or so) on the proposed 10k buffer setting. After tonights switchback I can conclude that >3k6 won't do in my system. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Folks. I do understand that some folks consider this place a nice hangout to chat about this or that. However. AD conversion of LPs I really don't consider part of TT3.0 anymore. ;) How about changing the subject?? Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile rednecks
Phil Leigh;686421 Wrote: > I agree with pretty much everything you say here, Klaus. When you say > "I'm sure that every difference you can hear can be measured." I > agree... so if it can't be measured... maybe that's because it isn't > really there to be heard? You have to allow for that possibility. Bear > in mind that I'm saying this as someone who HAS measured/detected > changes from your work. > kind regards, > Phil Look Phil. I think you're kind of smart guy. But you seem to have a problem to get the message out of my posting. I'm not refering to my work btw. I couldn't care less. Above post is kept generic. Though it pretty much shows the reason why I wouldn't even try to start measurements on my own. The funny thing is all those experts and scientists around here continue to scream for measurements. Non of them seems to be willing to contribute anything. (Your diffmaker results are OK but wouldn't be acceptable as a sales argument or a scientific base. The only one who contributed measurements on HW mods was Caad in the TT2.0 thread. Obviously he had access to reasonably good gear. ) However: As I said, I have a problem with the black and white game. And please: It's not really nice that you just copy 50% of my statement and state we share a common view. I don't think we share a common view. You seem to continue trying to put people into the voodoo corner, because they don't deliver measurements. I hoped that you would have at least a look at my link references. I'd say I'd share my view with those audio professionals, who are well aware of todays limitations. Especially you, should be a bit more careful by now. You tried to prove your scientific view: "If you can't hear it, it's not there" with Audio Diffmaker on TT2.0. I guess you were surprised to find out about a different logic: If YOU can't hear a difference, it doesn't mean it's not there. (Especially if other people report to hear a difference.) If YOU can't hear a difference in your own environment, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a different environment. It's useless to try to get the issue solved in the virtual world. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93236 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audiophile rednecks
Phil Leigh;686269 Wrote: > Whatever it is you are hearing, it is neither measurable nor > understandable using conventional science. Dear Phil. Bold statement. Did you become the speaker of the "conventional science" community!?!? ;) My view: I'm sure that every difference you can hear can be measured. Things would be just damned complex and costly. Nobody is willing or able to put that much effort into the subject. And if you finally measure you end up with a. highly questionable measurements (if 10 people measure you will get 10 different results) (measureing is an art of is own) (measurement equipment is driven close if not over its limits) (measurement equipment introduces its own flaws to the measurement) (ever compared measurements done in reviews and those done by manufacturers !?!? I bet, not a single measurement will look the same) b. highly questionable interpetations of measurements (if ten people interprete results, you'll get 10 different "opinions" about how these would sound exactly) ( I havn't seen any professional manufacturer who would develop and deliver equipment without listening to his devices, no they wouldn't trust their own measurements. These measurements first of all have to look good to please the marketing and those wannabe scientific folks.) c. many of those who do measure ( willing or able to spent time and money) do have their own agenda (usually commercial interests, or big egos) Not any audio equipment is sold based on scientific facts. They're sold based on some industrywide commonly agreed (questionable) specs - which seem to make them comparable. Of course there's crowd out there who buys by comparing specs. But that's the minority. People take buying decisions based on reviews and listenig tests. If you'd compare those specs, all devices should sound very similar. If there is a THD/N of -100db or -102db. What does is say about sound. Nothing Two amps can have the same specs and sound completely different. So what!?!? You as a scientific person would obviously buy the -102db model, even though it would sound crappier then the -100db device. I'd buy the -100db model because it sounds better and I know that these low levels are somewhat irrelevant anyhow. Look Phil. The whole thing is not black or white. Of course you need measurements. But you can't get rid of listening tests. Listening tests is the only thing everybody can do. High quality measurements can be done by a very very small group of people only and still wouldn't show you the soul of that piece of silicon and metal. And don't forget. At one point audio becomes a matter of taste. Never try to argue with people about taste. That won't work and most probably turns back on you. I find this 'Designers Speakout' (http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=11&pagestring=Do+Measurements+Matter) a very interesting read. Enjoy. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93236 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
SBGK;686275 Wrote: > Soundcheck, > > If you are going to put forward proposals for tweaks to the server side > in TT4.0 then be careful not to post about it in this forum, my thread > detailing such changes has been closed as the discussion was deemed > stupid. > > Look. There is slight difference between you and me. Sometimes I have the feeling you don't see that. The whole Toolbox thing has been my very own idea and work. Server and network tweaks do have quite a long history on my blog. "WLAN off" as the first network tweak was one of my very first tweaks. Then you'll find several others mods that also relate to the network and server. And... ...surprise, surprise my threads still exist. And I'm not banned. This TT3.0 thread only has meanwhile close to 10 hits (probably one of the highest hitcounts/time in this forum). Threads like that keep a forum going. I do think TT4.0 wouldn't cause less attention. It's not me who gotta problem. Please don't forget: All this discussion is not about your "constructive" and "partly" valuable contributions. The message you received is crystal clear, isn't it: It's all about attitude and respect. (Yep. Something like that exists, even in the virtual world.) Look. You even started trying to accuse me of certain things recently. That's not what I call a nice attiude. In my own forum I would have banned you for that kind of attitude. I can tell you. The way you act won't let you make many friends. If your own thread is not even able to survive the "audiophile" section over here @ SB forums, you better change your attitude or you look for a different place to post your findings. BTW: I never filed a complaint. Interesting to see that others did. I really hope that we can stop all these nasty discussions and go on with more constructive part of the project. Thx. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How to improve the sound of your Squeezebox Touch
Kevin Haskins;685348 Wrote: > The very best way to improve the sound of ANY Squeezebox Touch is to use > better loudspeakers. > > Just my $0.02 There's a law of nature related to audio. It's called the "Shisho" law. That "Shisho" law says: "WYFIWYG" -- What You Feed Is What You Get. The way you express your opinion won't comply with that rule. By changing the speaker you won't change anything on your source. Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93084 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How to improve the sound of your Squeezebox Touch
magiccarpetride;684821 Wrote: > You are in a privileged position of being able to use the 'giant killer' > T-amps, which are best driven off a standalone battery. I can't, because > I'm in a need of tremendous power and current in order to feed my hungry > beasts -- Maggies. > > 'Scientists' on this forum pretend as if there are no electromagnetic > nor radio frequency interferences in our environs (so much for their > scientific prowess), and so they are at a loss as to why would a better > cable or a prudent filtering of this noise make any difference. Bottom > line, who cares, and we can't even say it's their loss because such > people never listen with their ears, they are only capable of > 'listening' with their intellects. They're like those stupid people who > seem incapable of enjoying a meal in a restaurant unless they first read > some lame blurb on the menu describing the ingredients and how the > tomatoes are imported from sunny Toscany etc. As you know. There so many real smart people around here. ;) Fact is. A cable acts as an antenna and a filter due to its capacitive, resistive and inductive characteristics. And these characteristics are different for every cable. The plugs make things worse of course. And pretty poor grounding in standard households won't make things any better. Nobody would question that a coupling capacitor could change the sound. (I guess - ;) ) A power-cable-(filter) is not supposed to have any impact on the sound??? If you change a coupling cap, you don't have to redo the whole board to experience a difference. That's the same with that "power-cable-filter". You don't have to change the entire mains cabling to experience a difference. Enjoy your new mains cable. P.S: Yep. If you've made up your mind to go for the Maggies, you have to live with certain compromises. That's why I'd never go for low SPL speakers. My minimum reqirement would be 94db/W SPL. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93084 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
SBGK: I said, just shutdown the entire audio stuff on the server. This way you don't have to tweak it. What's wrong with this? I think it's more then time for you to open your own thread. I'd appreciate it. That'll give you your own platform to announce "your" "great" "new" findings. Good luck. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] How to improve the sound of your Squeezebox Touch
...some years back in the darg ages of slightly polluted mains power ( compared to todays massive pollution). I did a lot of weired things. I swapped my power cables (pure silver!!), in-wall cables down to the distribution frame. I swapped pretty much everything in the path. Plugs, fuses (silver), fuse holders, phases asf. I introduced DC filters and power filters, isolation transformers and a separate real fad grounding connection. Obviously all device-fuses were also those audiophile silver types. Not to forget. I even had a Shakti Stone hooked up on the mains cable. Guess what. Pretty much everything made a nice "difference". Tyred of all that, I hooked up my stuff to a very low impedance 12V battery feeding a 25$ Tripath amp. Another battery was feeding the digital frontend. Guess what. My sound had never been better. It's all about change. That keeps as moving. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=93084 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Hi folks. Anything happened over here during the last 2-3 weeks? People seem to get bored again lately. ;) Cheers @SBGK: If you turn off all audio services you don't have to tweak them. ;) -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
NoRoDa;680466 Wrote: > Thanks > > > I hope you have time to explain a bit more in depth about the buffer > and the CPU load differences later. > Like the sirq-net-rx using 21% CPU playing HiRez with TT3.0 > > No critisism, just wondering. > > Regards > Rolf Send them as flacs. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Just a quick one. The absolute load is IMO not necessarily the key indicator. E.g. If you decrease buffer size you usually experience higher load. More interrupts are kicking in. I had a similar experience when increasing the timer from 1000 to 1Hz on my Linux machine. The point is to find a kind of balanced close to linear load condition, where the audio critical process(es) gets most of the airtime. And that's not that easy to achieve. We shouldn't forget that the Touch btw has to manage two continous important streams. The audio stream and the ethernet stream. However. High CPU loads (in relative terms!!!) causing non-linear/race/out-of-balance conditions must be avoided. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Hi folks. Just had a quick look to see what's been going on over here during the last couple of days. It seems there's not much to comment. And not much has changed. Thx to NoRoDa's recent initiative to sort out that IMO massive confusion that's been generated during the last couple of days. >From my perspective there is -- at this stage -- no further need to discuss and follow up on (close to) Logitech default settings. (...and there is also no need to discuss Logitech settings with Logitech employees.) A happy new year to all of you guys. I'll be back next week. Cheers P.S: @John S. : Thx for the feedback. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
HumanMedia;678603 Wrote: > > > All of these current tweaks are also based around the TT3 default core > process priorities. > Yep that's correct. Though "current" tweaks are no tweaks, how I'd define them. It's just a different parametrization of one out of many other modifications. Similar to buffer value changes, though a bit more complex. HumanMedia;678603 Wrote: > > Im wondering if there could be a far better 'chord' of base process > priorities to tweak around? > You're invited to contribute that ""far better"" 'chord'. ;) I'm currently at a stage asking myself: "What more do I want? It's all there." When it comes to the process of how to identify certain settings: The logic that's been applied is putting potentially rather important processes/interrupts high and rather less important processes low. This is the starting point. (pretty much in line with the overal TT modification principle) What many of those processes and interrupts do is roughly indicated/described in the TT-code or you can look it up in the Linux environment or via Google. That'll give you at least some idea where to put this or that parameter. If a particular change of a single parameter has an impact or not doesn't really matter in the beginning. To speed things up you just put all potentially unimportant settings to lower values and rather important ones you line up in the upper range. If you don't do the rough grouping first it would take forever to get to results. And getting to results in a quite efficient way is the only thing what counts. Logitech had applied a similar logic when chosen their prio profile. Logitech though were facing the challenge to find the best compromise to avoid lockups or slowdowns of this or that process/function. To them it's more important to have the display and touchpad working smoothly. That's what the customer will see. On standard Linux kernels you'll find a CFS scheduler (Complete Fair Scheduler)in place. That one makes sure that a normal PC works smooth (fair) under all conditions. A realtime kernel is intentially all but "fair". There's no other OS which has a realtime kernel functionality built in like a rt-linux kernel. rt-kernels are ususally used for industrial realtime purposes. For a "fad" PClike system like the Touch, a modern 3.x CFS kernel might have been the better choice for Logitech. Though, I'm more than happy that there is an rt-kernel inside. Back to the tuning. The final finetuning of the prio mod - the cream on the cake - what's been discussed over here recently is more or less a trial and error excercise (prio Bingo). Nobody is able to look that deep into the code and kernel to figure out exactly how things exactly work together. It's really more about approximation and luck to find the best settings. SBGK's been the only one seriously supporting this excercise. Thx a lot for contributing your findings. Though as you can see from the continous changes that are currently being applied, the Bingo game is full in progress . It's all but stable yet. Nothing I would release to the public at this stage. That's why I've decided not to launch TT4.0 before Christmas. Enjoy your holidays. Merry Christmas. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
HumanMedia;678417 Wrote: > One of the additional steps in Dynaudiorules tweak is that the samba > startup code in the was commented out, stopping samba from starting. > Just checking thats been incorporated as well? > (Im guessing that it may be might of those processes thats been > nulled?) Samba off, wlan off and quite some more stuff was implemented in TT1.0 already. ;) -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
NoRoDa;678403 Wrote: > > Is soundcheck also using the same settings? > No. Though I've implemented a profle switcher into my own current TT version. I put SBGK's profile in as one out of currently 5 profiles that I use for testing. I'm now in the position to switch very easily between all of them. As you might have guessed I also have dynaudiorules profile in for testing. The 5 processes he touches have always been part (with different values) of TT3.0 btw. You just can't get around those. If you want to try those, you can easily impelement his changes. Though his profile you won't find in the final version of TT4.0. Bottom line. All those profiles make a difference. You'll find some of those profiles in the final release. This way you guys can switch and choose what works best for you. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
rgro;678299 Wrote: > O.Kso I got too curious and gave SBGK's tweaks a shot last night and > listened for several hours. My initial impression was that the music > was very smth but, in fact, had an overall muffled quality to > it. > I'd pretty much agree with you on this one. Though I wouldn't call it "muffled". ;) It's a good sign that those very similar and subtle differences can be identified on different systems by different people nowadays. My own latest setup IMO doesn't have those slight distortions anymore. It's clean, crisp, no hiss, slightest sounds are audible, endless decays, deepest bass rolling asf. Yep. There's IMO a little more to gain. I also optimized my W7 server setup plus network parameter setup on the server even further. You really shouldn't underestimate the impact of the server side. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
SBGK;678121 Wrote: > > > I am covered as my Benchmark dac1 has one on input. > Covered!?!? That you'll know once you've tried several transformers. ;) -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
One more SPDIF hint. First of all, just to mention it (again?) , a pulsetransformer for isolation purposes is a must!!! You should have just one transformer on the link though. Having two on the link degrades the sound. Make sure you got a transfomer in place on your DAC input. However. I tried several different so called "audiophile" pulsetransformers (Scientific Conversion, Newava, Murata and more) on the DAC side (or better on my 100$ full digital amp -- Yep. No more DAC + AMP and associated shortcomings!!! My Sabre is sitting idle again). All those transformers were causing quite a different (and mostly non satisfacory) sound signature. Though still better than running the noise right into your DAC. You wouldn't believe what impact this little device can have. I do consider this device pretty important on my list of potenial bottlenecks in the chain. ( Don't try to convince me to use Toslik instead!!) The challenge was to find the right one. ;) Cheers Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Yep, that's correct. I plan to introduce different profiles some with more some with less impact and one with no impact. Those you'll even be able to edit easily and switch back and forth. There is no generic right or wrong in that area. It's obvious that the very same setting can work on several systems very well. On other systems it just works not as good. The same situation we have on the buffer settings. I run mine at 3200. Others can't go below 4000. And others prefer a nice and mellow 20.000. But we also learned that some people who've been following my advise and sorted out other bottlenecks (e.g. in the network or on the HW) made a big step into the right direction and were able to run settings which they couldn't run before. I do understand very well that not everybody is able or willing to dive into that tweaking jungle. It takes 1. quite some enthusiasm and 2. quite some experience not to fool yourself while tweaking. We've seen that during the last couple of days. However. You guys can believe me that I'm not that ignorant not to listen to or not to follow up on what's been said over here. Ther's always space for improvement. You'll see that in TT4.0. ;) Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
I'm not aware that anybody reported "crackling" caused by TT3.0 since its release. Even buffer sizes changes usually won't cause crackling. USB DACs attached to the Touch usually cause cracklings. Maybe you got a problem in the network. You might want to verfiy that everything is OK with your router/cables. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Of course there's a need for user interaction. But that's valid for a huge number of devices. I don't want to have the 10th remote or UI or keyboard on the table. The UI doesn't have to be built into a device any longer. That's just cranking up the pricetag. Many other manufacturers have realized that. Have a look at Sonos or many other headless streaming devices out there. They all get along without display. Instead of charging a 200$ premium for a rather useless and low quality (compared to tablets or phones) UI they could offer a discounted tablet + App as an option. The Logitech Squeeze family IMO has a serious branding and marketing issue. They need to do somehting about it. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
screen off turns the display completely off. You can measure it on the power consumption. If you use the screensaver "screen off" there won't be a difference. It is known to most of the people around that the touch-surface stays on. I havn't found the "knob" to turn that one off. The screen and the graphical user interface is what's bugging me most on the Touch. The GUI related background processes are also still active. There are even sensors which check every couple of milliseconds the light conditions. I think Logitech spent most of their time and budget on the Display and GUI stuff. Honestly I'd love to see a DUET 3 kind of device. Most of the community findings on the HW and SW side should go into that design. They should focus on clean no frill streaming black box. It should come with a new 3.1 rt-kernel, newest ALSA and a better USB controller inside. All @ 100$. ;) Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Hi folks. As it seems you (we) are back where you (we) started a couple of days back. Obviously those clicks you experience (and me too after trying those rather radical all-prio-40-to-0 changes) are not acceptable. But that's tweakers live. Now the (time consuming) fun part starts. ;) We need to figure out what's causing those clicks? It's maybe just a single prio set to a wrong value. Best way to do this is to start over from scratch. Start with the easy wins such as USB, SD and than continue one by one. Every step needs to be thoroughly verified. And don't forget to verify all kind of sample rates (44.1/96) and data types (flac,wav,...) asf. All these are causing different load conditions. I'd also suggest that we should avoid to copy the entire prio function on any change made into this thread. (Proposal: Either we fork that exercise into a new thread or we run it offline) Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Hi Marco. Yep. You got it. My proposed way of controlling the Touch is via pad or phone. However. Since you're not the only one who needs local control options, I built in functions to enable/disable those. You can turn your infrared controller back on and you can also turn the screen (temporarily) on. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
NoRoDa;676393 Wrote: > @soundcheck: > > I have been playing around with the PRIOIRQ47. > Eventually found how to make the changes permanent. > Don't think that these changes are quite as earth shattering as the tt > -r and tt -i differences. But I found the value 41 to sound best in my > system. > 59 beeing to thin and from 1 to 40 giving little - if any - difference. > > > Is it correct that you are working on an update that will give us a > TT-command to change between different prio-settings? > > Regards > Rolf The new version will have 3 different priority profiles to choose from. That'll make it easier to compare different settings on-the-fly. I do not intend to introduce something on a single process basis. As I mentioned earlier. You don't get a guitar tuned by just tuning one string. I hope that the "default" prio-profile (with the valuable support of you guys) of the next release won't let us much more space for improvement. ;) Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
SBGK;676304 Wrote: > > Am convinced that setting these low priority pids to sched_other is > making an improvement in sound So, that makes two of us. ;) SBGK;676304 Wrote: > > tried another 2 events/0 and krcupreemptd which were both sched_fifo > priority 0 before. Think there is more detail etc. You can add IRQ-7 and IRQ-8 (sd-card) and the watchdog to the list. (It'll be part of the update) -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
"Dazed and Confused" Me too. ;) No. Just kidding. As you've noticed SBGK tries this or that modification in the process priority setting area. Today it's prio 51 on this process and tommorrow it is prio 1 on another process. It's a trial and error exercise, since you don't know exactly how all those processes interact. But that's the way it works. As I mentioned earlier. There's a little more to gain in that area. I'm well aware of it. It's IMO not night and day though. Discussing that kind of stuff over here confuses people. I'm well aware of that. I usally try to avoid it. Me and my "beta-team" are running a new set of mods since quite some time. Since I won't offer non verfied and non tested in-between hacks, I need to make sure that every TT update runs stable before releasing it. Meanwhile there are thousands of downloads and probably as many happy users out there. That puts some expectations and pressure on me. As I mentioned earlier, there'll be another TT release soon. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
run a ps -edf | grep IRQ you should see that IRQ-37 is still there. It just runs in sched_other With earlier ps command we just look up threads with rt-priority. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
I tried: "kill -9 $(pidof IRQ-37)" on-the-fly. Nothing's been killed or changed. Do me a favour. Checkout your process table with following command: ps -eo pid,tid,class,pri,rtprio,cmd | grep -v " - " That'll show you all IRQ threads and associated rt-prios. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Thx for the hint SBGK. Sounds promising. I never considered to kill those IRQ threads. I'll check it out. If that works, there might be even more of those type or IRQ threads to kill. ;) Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
korzena;675477 Wrote: > Hi, > As promised I am reporting on Hiface MK3. > > I got it a few days ago and still can't stop listening. I was expecting > little improvement to my Squeezebox Touch, but this thing introduced a > dramatic change in my system. > > The sound is much more dynamic, lively, it has much more depth and > body. These were the features I've been missing in my Squeezebox from > day one. > > I've heard that not in all systems Hiface makes such a dramatic > difference - in mine it certainly did! > > Guys, if you only have a chance, make yourself a favour and listen to > this little amazing device! It's the usual thing. Some people claim they can't hear any differences others are raving about it. I've been challenging my setup ( server/network/touch/PS, you can say pretty much all HW and SW mods you'll find on my blog) with an Audiophilleo II (supposed to be similar performing as the modded HiFace. Just to see how far I got with the Touch. I (and the other people around at that time) concluded that the Touch can stay. Afaik the main mod JKenny does is adding a local LiPoFe4 battery to the device, which stabilizes the power situation and decouples to a certain extent from the noisy PC PS. IMO that level you'll achieve on the Touch if you mod its internal power supply situation and decoupling. You need to further apply those SPDIF tweaks I described on the blog. Without doing all that those quality PC SPDIF interfaces will beat the Touch. I do recognize very well what your talking about. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
bimboy;674013 Wrote: > Hello, > I echo Soundchecks last statement " this thread is about trying and > experiencing". > I have a very good system; good enough to detect small changes, even > with my ears of increasing age, there is no shadow of doubt that the > latest Toolbox 3.0 produces a magnitude of change to the detail in the > sound image I am now getting from my system. One fact I have discovered > over my years of spending time seeking to improve my hi-fi system, is > that the best way to detect changes in the system is by listening over > a period of time. Running a short A/B test over a short period leaves > you open to being influenced by all end of factors. The only secure > method is by listening over a period of several days and gauging > whether you detect an improvement, decrease in quality or no change in > quality. > I have heard so much more detail in my system following Soundcheck's > Toolbox 2.0 and 3.0. I do not need graphs or specifications to tell > whether there has been an improvement in my system or not. I listen to > music with my ears a little bit of brain power and a receptive soul. > Of course it would be nice to have a rational explanation of how the > changes have the impact they have, but that would not change the > positive impact I hear in my system one way or the other. > I have been using a standalone DAC and Squeezebox (starting with > Squeezebox 2 , then 3 then Touch)for the last 6 years, and without a > doubt, with the Toolbox 3.0 mods, the Touch is in the leader board in > terms of digital sources, regardless of costs. If you take it's > performance/cost into account, it is unbeatable. > The only change I have found to give an improvement in my system is to > change the SPDIF setting from the standard toolbox 3.0 value of 40 to > 51 (chrt -f -p 51 367). It gets rid of a bit of harshness (accentuated > high end) that I believe is due to the added clarity of the source and > the transparency of my system. > Thanks to Soundcheck for sharing the results of his hard work. > > --- > My System: > Squeezebox Touch : Soundcheck Toolbox 3.0 : ethernet wired > Musical Fidelity Trivista 21 DAC > Musical Fidelity KW550 integrated amp > Dynaudio Special 25 speakers > Chord interconnects and speaker cabling Thx for the feedback. BTW: I've put some more work on the task priority mod. (more than just looking at the famous SPDIF prio) In the upcoming release you'll be able to switch between different priority profiles on-the-fly. I also have another thing ongoing. I might put that also into the package. But as you already realized with 3.0. The air gets thinner. That "racecar" needs careful treatment to perform best. Not everybody is able to drive a racecar. ;) I currently consider to launch a new release the week before Christmas. If I'll get my multimedia network properly arranged by then!?!? (Off topic: If somebody thinks audio streaming means a lot of hazzle - then don't ever start with highest quality video streaming. All those formats, codecs and incompatibilities drive you nuts. I just had to transcode my entire image collection on top of that video hazzle to make it availabe at a good quality in the network. However. I do really think it's worth it. I'll have audio, video and images at close to highest quality available in the network and playable on my new phantastic Sony. And no need (for now) of having a HTPC in the living room. I just need a powerful server for transcoding duties and data management.) Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Stephen;673942 Wrote: > OK, two posts have been eaten, so now I post again really annoyed. > Anyhoo, I share praganj's skepticism. This is supposed to be one of > SB's advantages over ASIO-based playback -- not having to worry that > the PC muck might still affect SQ. > > I thought setting server priority was supposed to address what needed > to be addressed. This thread is not about thinking (and talking). This thread is about trying and experiencing. It's that easy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
praganj;673850 Wrote: > I understand, that fidelizer is chaning some priorities with preference > to audio processes on the computer. > > Does "fidelizer" knows that SBS processes belongs to audio part ??? I doubt it. I don't know what logic he puts in assigning ceratin apps with certain priorities. He recommends to start the audio process once you've run Fidelizer. I guess he's taking ceratin assumptions about the last started process. Why don't you get in touch with that guy and let us know. ;) -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
praganj;673841 Wrote: > What is actually fidelizer doing ? > > Making some better priority for audio proceses on the computer doesn't > make to much sense, because SBS is actually not one "audio" process. > > We are not listening to the music from our SBS computer, but from SBT. > > Anybody knows more about the fidelizer ? "audio related process". That's what the media server obviously is all about! ;) Fidelizer stops system services and threads, reshuffles priorities, frees system resources (low quality Windows X mode) and maybe more. There are also other tools doing that. With these you'll have a bit more control about what's being done. I was really surprised and more than disappointed when I realized first time that all that upstream stuff has a serious impact on the Touch performance. I never thought that the server could make a difference. It does. That fact makes the whole subject more complex then running a standalone PC based media server. After fiddling around for years with all this stuff, I can conclude that it requires at full file RAM playback to get rid of streaming related effects. It doesn't matter if you stream from a HDD or a network. Again. If the external audio interfaces would be immune against PC originated distortions, we wouldn't have that discussion. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
c-eling;673805 Wrote: > Does fidalizer mess with the performance of other applications or video > hardware? It'll mostly focus on system incl. X related optimizations. It is recommended to start a particluar audio/video related application "after" Fidelizer have finished its initial job. So, stop the LMS first, run Fidelizer, restart the LMS. I'm also running J.River Media Center (video and audio) on a fidelized system with good results. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Sajk;673250 Wrote: > Hi guys > > Im going to change "source" for my current setup Synology DS-408 -> > Touch -> Bryston BDA-1 to dedicated PC under Windows 7 as recommended > by Klaus. > Please share your opinion about best sounding version of Windows 7 > (Pro, Home, Ultimate, ) as well as about 32 or 64 bits. > > Thank you! I doubt that there is a difference between packages. You choose 64 bit on a 64bit capable platform. More improtant is that you apply e.g. TCPoptimizer. Make sure that your MBO ethernet driver and all the other drivers are up2date. I just heard that the W8 beta seems to perform quite good in comparision to W7. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
magicj1;673208 Wrote: > Hi. > > is this not possible? just need to know before buying a DAC nope. i couldn't imagine that anybody is running both outputs at the same time. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
praganj;672493 Wrote: > It looks that Buffalo DAC is better engineered than many other "well > enigineered" DACs :) The TP Buffalo DAC is just a Sabre DAC appliance. I don't see much of impressive engineering. It's extremly sensitive on incoming distortions. It requires multi stage de-jittering to make that device sing. The key area "(onboard)power supply" needed to be swapped out completely. However - We use that device for testing though. Because it's cheap. And delivers a nice base. But on the BII you at least need to 1. swap all onboard regulators (LiPoFe4 batteries prefered) 2. run a better output stage (passive transformer based) 3. at least put a real good pulse transformer on the SPDIF input 4. remove the PIC All that can easily double/triple the price tag. However. At that tweaked level you'll have a close to reference quality device at hand. IMO in the key areas TP just delivers average audio electronics. The newest Bufallo incarnation is supposed to be better then BII though. If you have a look at other commercial applications of that Sabre DAC you'll see that you can do better on the engineering part. ;) Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Phil Leigh;672119 Wrote: > Assuming of course the differences are really there. > That kind of stuff really disqualifies you from my perspective. You're applying or at least try all my mods. You go even further. And then this kind of statement... Phil Leigh;672119 Wrote: > Do you really want this thread to consist only of posts that say > "I installed TT 3 and a switch between router and Touch and now > everything sounds wonderful"? When is comes to constructive feedback: All valuable feedback over here and elsewhere will make it back into my documentations and recommendations. I'm listeing carefully what people are reporting and act accordingly. Since all those discussions seem to be put by yourself into the Voodoo corner of your particualr brain section, you wouldn't even notice those kind of constructive discussions. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Compared to a range extender or wireless bridge device there shouldn't be much of an advantage - except a higher and more solid bandwidth. I'd expect the endpoint as noisy as any other active element. And the last piece of wire is still in the loop. It might help that you hook up the whole stuff to mains isolation transformers. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Hi Phil. Thx for repeating what's been said and written several times. ;) It's all about noise and interferences and EMI/RFI and poor grounding and poor shielding and poluted power lines and and and Your recommendation about avoiding CAT6 doesn't have a basis. The cables are 100% compatible. And these better cables do have a very positve impact on the pysical side. Shorter cables and signal refreshing at a shorter distance towards the client will obviously also have a positive impact. Let me quote from here: http://www.broadbandutopia.com/caandcaco.html > > Why do I need all the bandwidth of category 6? As far as I know, there > is no application today that requires 200 MHz of bandwidth. > > Bandwidth precedes data rates just as highways come before traffic. > Doubling the bandwidth is like adding twice the number of lanes on a > highway. The trends of the past and the predictions for the future > indicate that data rates have been doubling every 18 months. Current > applications running at 1 Gb/s are really pushing the limits of > category 5e cabling. As streaming media applications such as video and > multi-media become commonplace, the demands for faster data rates will > increase and spawn new applications that will benefit from the higher > bandwidth offered by category 6. This is exactly what happened in the > early 90s when the higher bandwidth of category 5 cabling compared to > category 3 caused most LAN applications to choose the better media to > allow simpler, cost effective, higher speed LAN applications, such as > 100BASE-TX. Note: Bandwidth is defined as the highest frequency up to > which positive power sum ACR (Attenuation to Crosstalk Ratio) is > greater than zero. > > What is the general difference between category 5e and category 6? > > The general difference between category 5e and category 6 is in the > transmission performance, and extension of the available bandwidth from > 100 MHz for category 5e to 200 MHz for category 6. This includes better > insertion loss, near end crosstalk (NEXT), return loss, and equal level > far end crosstalk (ELFEXT). These improvements provide a higher > signal-to-noise ratio, allowing higher reliability for current > applications and higher data rates for future applications. > > Will category 6 supersede category 5e? > > Yes, analyst predictions and independent polls indicate that 80 to 90 > percent of all new installations will be cabled with category 6. The > fact that category 6 link and channel requirements are backward > compatible to category 5e makes it very easy for customers to choose > category 6 and supersede category 5e in their networks. Applications > that worked over category 5e will work over category 6. > > What does category 6 do for my current network vs. category 5e? > > Because of its improved transmission performance and superior immunity > from external noise, systems operating over category 6 cabling will > have fewer errors vs. category 5e for current applications. This means > fewer re-transmissions of lost or corrupted data packets under certain > conditions, which translates into higher reliability for category 6 > networks compared to category 5e networks. > > When should I recommend or install category 6 vs. category 5e? > > From a future proofing perspective, it is always better to install the > best cabling available. This is because it is so difficult to replace > cabling inside walls, in ducts under floors and other difficult places > to access. The rationale is that cabling will last at least 10 years > and will support at least four to five generations of equipment during > that time. If future equipment running at much higher data rates > requires better cabling, it will be very expensive to pull out category > 5e cabling at a later time to install category 6 cabling. So why not do > it for a premium of about 20 percent over category 5e on an installed > basis? > > If I had to choose I'd go for a better cable. We're talking about peanuts here. Cheers P.S: The fiber solution could in fact be an interesting alternative. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
evdplancke;671895 Wrote: > I did some critical listening of Fever from Valerie Joyce late this > night in order to compare the sound quality of Linux vs Windows > servers. The server configurations were consisting of a Synology NAS > DS211j on one hand and a PC with Windows 7x64 HPE on the other, both > running LMS 7.7.0. The listening test confirmed the superiority of Win > 7 on Linux (at least on a NAS). > > The tones were more natural, with more harmonics, and the soundstage > was better defined with Win7. This was a tiny difference at first > listening but repetitive listening confirmed that there is > distinctively more musicality from LMS running on Win7. This impression > was confirmed by my wife who did blind listening and gave her preference > to Win7. > > After that, I continued my tests with a comparison between analog and > digital outputs of the Touch with all TT3.0 mods enabled except tt -k > in order to be able to switch quicker between outputs. By now I can > confirm that the V-DAC Mk II definitely adds far more crisp and > musicality to the Touch output compared to analog. This was also > confirmed by my wife. The difference was far more perceptible than with > my previous V-DAC "Mk I" with which I made the same comparison a few > months ago with TT2.0 on my Touch. > > I will receive this week a V-PSU for my V-DAC II and I am eager to > continue these A-B listening tests, hoping I will still get further > improvements. Have you been using TCPOptimizer and Fidelizer ( The LMS has to be down btw when starting up Fidelizer! ) under W7. I did also do some listening to the V-DAC II the other day. IMO a very nice DAC at a more than fair pricing. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
VU meter: If you'd have had a look at my SB setup instructions you could have noticed that I advised to set the screensaver to "off" during playback. ;) Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
guidof;670118 Wrote: > OK. So, I chickened out about the Netgear unit you mention after reading > the many reviews about its unreliable performance. Instead, I got an > "Amped Wireless High Power Wireless-N Smart Repeater and Range Extender > (SR300)." ($90). > Guidof. Thx for that constructive feedback. You're the first one confirming that those range extenders will be a nice alternative. Finally many people can get rid of that direct wireless link pretty easy. Your experience just confirms again that a dedicated device such as a router/hub/bridge/range extender right in front of the Touch will have a positive impact. Your feedback also confirms that bottlenecks in the chain at whatever position will mask certain improvements done at other places. Just a last remark. I think I mentioned it before: For those who still want to squeeze more out of everything, try a better power supply on that router/bridge/range/extender/hub. I'm pretty sure you'll experience another improvement. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Folks. I'm really tired of that kind of talk. It's always the same over here. At this place in particular. If people get bored they start hijacking those threads. These people exactly know how to pull the trigger - pushing a thread into an unwanted direction. These people just don't contribute anything constructive. Unfortunately you can't keep them out. Back to the actual storyline. Some people reported to have a problem using WinSCP/Putty etc. It would take them quite some time to get things going. I thought why not create a little video tutorial. What else should I do on a Sunday morning. This little exercise ended up with my first Youtube video. You'll find a 2.28 minutes - that's how long the installation can take - video at my blog installation section. (No sound yet!) Direct 'youtube link' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6Iv90BV5A). Enjoy. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Those of you who understand the logic behind my approach, easily understand that different HDDs ( internally or externally powered), an USB cable, RAM, MOB, PS, etc.,etc, will also make a difference on a PC based transport. Our embedded Touch is a pretty much stripped down PC. Which is a pretty good starting point. But again. If the DACs would be able to cope better with common-mode noise, timeing variations and drifts asf. we wouldn't have that IMO annyoing and never ending discussion. I'd be really annoyed if I'd just bought a DAC at 2000+ and it still responds to improvements on the transport side. There are many manfacturers out there claiming immunity to the transprot. You should ask yourself then why they all still run Amarra on presentations. I guess on RMAF there was not any presentation not running a so called "audiphile" playback software. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
1. Atkinson and many other PROs are using Amarra, Pure Music or similar under OSX. Those tools follow a similar stategy then I do. Cics with Cplay/CMP2. tries to push it from the XP side btw. and also addresses the HW. On a platform like OSX or MSW you can't push it to the limits though. An embedded rt-linux system without fancy features like UIs is the close to perfect base. All those audiophile and highpriced players do cause an audible change on 99.99 % of all DACs. If the DAC manfactureres would do a better job, we wouldn't have this discussion. Cheers P.S. I've been in contact with John A. and Kal Rubinson from Stereophile btw. -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Folks. If everything would be that easy... I'm well aware that there are massive EMI/RFI and noise respectively serious grounding issues in private households. I'm a telecommunications engineer btw. You can read about that on my blog for more than a year btw. The first measure was to use unshielded ethernet cable. It got better, but that's wasn't solving all the upstream impact. How would you guys explain that different server settings or different OS or different servers make a difference? Yep. All common-mode noise. I know. As you've seen some posts earlier, somebody had a bottleneck in the network. He got rid of it and everything got better. I bet you. The data he received were always correct. We turn off WLAN and things get better. There's more than one factor to look at. How you'd finally call the baby is another question. It's not about who is wrong or right. Many people do experience that impact. What's missing is the explanation for it. Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Phil Leigh;669170 Wrote: > Instead of issuing personal attacks against me, perhaps you'd like to > explain HOW network "packet jitter" can possibly impact audio quality? > If I'd try to find out and explain the root cause behind all the areas of improvement, TT3.0 would have been launched in 2015 earliest. If I'd be black and white thinking as you do, I wouldn't have figured out any of my tweaks. I do not intend to do any scientific work here. If anybody would be willing to pay for it, please let me know. Following my (to all of you known, if your read my blog) strategy I consider highly efficient and result oriented. It just works out for me. Phil. If you'd be really ambitioned and interested you could be the one supporting the project. Find out the root cause of any of the mod associated improvements. Your comments ""...Oh dear... "packet jitter" is only relevant to network protocols..."" do sound kind of arrogant to me. You suggest you'd understand the whole subject. I'm saying you don't. If you just look at one aspect I call it pigeonhole thinking. What's personal about that!?!? Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
Phil Leigh;669170 Wrote: > Instead of issuing personal attacks against me, perhaps you'd like to > explain HOW network "packet jitter" can possibly impact audio quality? > If I'd try to find out and explain the root cause behind all the araes of improvement, TT3.0 would have been launched in 2015 earliest. If I'd be black and white thinking as you do, I wouldn't have figured out any of my tweaks. I do not intend to do any scientific work here. If anybody would be willing to pay for it, please let me know. Following my (to al of you known) strategy I ocnsider highly efficient and result oriented. It just works out for me. If you'd be really ambitioned and interested you could be the one supporting the project. Find out the root cause of any of the mod associated improvements. Your comments ""...Oh dear... "packet jitter" is only relevant to network protocols..."" do sound kind of arrogant to me. You suggest you'd understand the whole subject. I'm saying you don't. If you just look at one aspect I call it pigeonhole thinking. What's personal about that!?!? Cheers -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0
My new server HW -- Zotac Zbox ID41 ION2 -- arrived. My TT server Linux is prepared and working. I spent a couple of hours on it last night. Unbelievable: This new ION2 platform performs worse than my old ION1. I can't get HD 1080p material to play anymore. I'll send it back. I need to find an alternative which manages both - server duties and HD playback at a simlar footprint and cost. (any hints are welcome) -- soundcheck ::: ' Touch Toolbox 3.0 and more' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com) ::: by soundcheck soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91322 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
